A few days ago I sent out some comments by Dave
McReynolds on the Jan. 18 demo in D.C.—mostly because I see Dave’s observations
of the demonstration as complementary to my own in some important ways, since
hardly anybody who was not in a helicopter or on a rooftop really got a total
picture of the crowd; it was that large.

As far as ANSWER goes, the things that caught me
in McReynolds’s remarks were: (1) Despite his antagonism toward ANSWER he was
there with enthusiasm. In other words, his priorities were right. (2) He
recognized the progressive character of the work ANSWER put into building the
demonstration.

In my opinion, there is no question that ANSWER
has played, warts and all, a clearly progressive role in this struggle
so far. I consider that a fact that is established beyond dispute for anyone
who supports a fight against the war and who is not blinded by historical
antagonisms or organizational irritations.

Is ANSWER “controlled” by Workers World? Well,
Workers World is the initiator and the dominant political tendency in ANSWER.
That is a fact, just like ANSWER’s progressive role overall so far is a fact.
It follows that ANSWER’s positive role devolves in part to the credit of
Workers World. This is fact, not opinion.

But it is also a fact that ANSWER has broadened
out significantly in the past period. I have observed that the members of the
relatively recently formed Student ANSWER who attend coalition meetings (and
the very fact that ANSWER representatives more and more often attend these
meetings is a sign of progress) are pretty representative. In their outlook,
politics, and organizational role they are similar to the student activists who
are associated with student coalitions sponsored by the International Socialist
Organization, or Refuse and Resist, or student groups that have no
political-tendency sponsorship at all.

I have certainly never heard one of these
students get up and make a speech against the Hungarian revolution or in favor
of the anti-Gorbachev coup. Do they already have firm opinions on these
questions? Frankly, I have my doubts.

I don’t see much point arguing over the question
of “control.” As an organization, ANSWER has a right to be controlled or not
controlled as it pleases. I will say that I haven’t met any ANSWER people who
struck me as having been sentenced to a slave labor camp rather than exercising
their political free will.

I don’t think Dave McReynolds gives enough
weight to the fact that ANSWER has already joined those building the February
15 mobilizations initiated by United for Peace and Justice. This is a step
forward for and by the whole movement.

It seems to me that this step forward should be
our starting point today, not disagreements or resentments built up in early
stages of the movement or before the movement existed.

My impression of the political origins of
Workers World is basically the same as Dave McReynolds’s, but so what? Whatever
your views of the Hungarian revolution may be, the fact is that it is history
today—important class-struggle history, but still history. I don't think that
ANSWER activists should be required to study or debate the Hungarian revolution
in order to determine their opinion of their organization or any other in this
fight today.

My political origins and training came in the
Socialist Workers Party [after Workers World had split from the SWP over the
question of the Hungarian revolution], and there’s no doubt in my mind that
many of my views and many aspects of how I try to function in the movement—for
instance, very firmly advocating my own views while collaborating with others
who disagree in order to carry out common action—have roots in that training
and experience.

But, frankly, I would be irritated and I think
rightly so by anyone who tried to criticize my opinions about what is happening
today by dragging in the history of the SWP, about which there are bound to be
many opinions, as well as many people who don’t see any need to have an
opinion.

The past really happened, the future lies ahead,
but all politics, and all class struggle, take place and can only take place in
the present. And I think the debates over the outlooks we have formed should
take place primarily in terms of and around their relevance and practical
effects in today’s struggle.

I suggest starting from today, and in particular
from the fact that we have before us the building of the first genuinely, fully
united action in the young history of this movement—not forcing the ancient
history to the fore today. I’m not going to forget ancient history any more
than Dave McReynolds is—it’s a big part of the reason why I am who I am and why
I do what I do—but let’s start from here and now. There is no other place in
the real world from which we can start.